Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: So essentially test rides with passengers (Score 4, Interesting) 122

I happen to both like driving AND like the option of having the car take over if I'm tired etc.

Cars are a unique instrument because of the degree of freedom they provide. My big concern is that the advent of self-driving cars will be used by the state to heavily infringe on those freedoms.

My sense is that within months of approval of this technology for mass market use, it will become mandatory, and within a few years after that havens of the nanny state will prohibit humans from driving.

All in the name of public safety of course. The cars will be monitored, tracked, and subject to stop on order from advice at any time.

Tell me this isn't the future.

Comment Re:Which religion is most dangerous. (Score 1) 120

Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.

It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.

The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.

But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.

Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.

You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terrorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. That you only find your question legitimate is not my problem, since it wasn't *my* question, and *you* responded to *my* question, not vice versa. And, as said - but you fail to realise, apparently - even if you take it that to mean 'done by believers of a religion', than for the past half century, Muslims still would have killed more than Christians.

I've repeated this several times now, and you never actually discuss anything let alone try to refute anything of the arguments I provided, but only reiterate the same thing over and over, like a mantra. Maybe you should start reading comprehensively? Or is your only point trolling?

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question: you only interpreted it as such. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.

You keep failing to understand that, while you only need a working brain to grasp it, with or without bigotry, but with rationality.

The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.

But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.

Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.

In contrast to your irrational emo-response, this does not mean or imply that I think that *every* Muslim is a terrorist. Far from it. But it does mean, that currently, Islam is the most dangerous religion in the context of terrorist attacks being done in name of a religion.

You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. Period.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Don't be so puerile. This is about applying logic and rational reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.

And.. don't you even read? I've already answered it twice.

Crusade:

1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"

As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Yes, and for that question you obviously need to address the attacks made in name of a religion, otherwise you can't say which religion is the greatest threat. Are you daft or simply being willfully obtuse? It was clear from the start you misinterpreted my question, since you started with a war that had no religious connotation at all, and that's why I clarified my question from the start. It's my question, so *I* know best what is meant by it, me thinks. ;-)

Besides, you can't have it both ways. If no religious connotation is necessary, than I would like to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war alone, 1,66 million Muslims were killed - by Muslims. that would trump your 1 million on the Iraq war by far.

But regardless, I can see you're trolling and will never concede the point unless I ask it directly, so you have no wriggle room anymore.

I'll ask you this question, thus: In the name of what religion is being done the most terrorist attacks this last decade?

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Not at all. You can scroll back, if you want, it's plain to see for all. I'll quote my original post to which you responded again:

"Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.

One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times."

Since you invoked wars done for geopolitical interests and oil control, which had nothing to do with a religious basis, I've provided further context: namely that for determing how dangerous a religion is, it has to have the religious component (duh), aka: which religion is the most dangerous in the sense of which attacks have been done in the name of which religion, and that for the last decade? You can continue to ignore the obvious, but it's clear the war in Iraq wasn't a religious war. You keep 'sic'-ing the word crusade, but I've already given you an anwser on that, namely that that word has other allegorical meanings as well. If you have doubts, you can look up the definitions yourself. Or better still, I'll provide them:

1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"

As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.

The USA, while - granted - inventing excuses like WMD's, did not do it out of hatred for Muslims and wanting to impose Christianity on Iraq, nor was it a Holy War against Islam (if it were, they would have simply nuked all Muslim countries), nor was it done in name of Christianity. You know this as well as I do, so your insistence that religion was the driving force behind the war in this regard is nonsensical and puerile.

You also didn't answer the other question: why did you presume Islam? Why not, for instance, Budhism? Or Jainism?

Comment Re: This is not a serious issue. This is very mino (Score 1) 139

In regard to cracks caused by the pressure and heat of the fuel when ignited, or of the turbineblades which pump the fuel, etc., it gives an exact representation, not a 'pale substitute'. There are some form of stresses that are less accurate when measured on ground-tests, but most of it provides excellent proof of reliability (or lack thereof) at the same level as if the rocket *were* retrieved afterwards.

Comment Re:Musk always ignores safety (Score 1) 139

Exactly. when I read the article of his own link, it was clearly mentioned: "Under even aggressive testing assumptions, *existing* fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles"

Maybe he didn't read the article well himself? Obviously, if one would have an 'existing fleet' of 1000 vehicles it could take tens of years, but if you have 1000000 vehicles you could have that within a couple of months.

I find it sometimes puzzling that people want to make a point , but than don't read their own linked articles, which doesn't corroborate their claim at all if you read them comprehensively.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

No, the question was: in which name of which religion is done the most attacks, this last decade? I explicitly said so what the question was in my former post, so either you're being wilfully obtuse, or you can't read comprehensively.

Obviously, if it isn't done in the name of a religion, the question which religion is the most dangerous has no bearings on it.

Islam?

So...why didn't you presume Buddhism was? Or Jainism?

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Yes, clearly the WMD was an excuse to get rid of Saddam (which they failed to do the first time), to get influence in the Middle-East, and for the oil.

All that, however, is irrelevant to consider which religion is the most dangerous, as in: determining in what regions' name attacks are being carried out the most, this past decade. For instance: were there the most terrorist attacks from Christians (done in the name of Christianity), from Muslims (in the Name of Islam), or from Buddhist (in the name of Buddha)?

Given that context, I stand by my words that it's pretty clear who scores the highest this last decade. This does not mean that all practitioners of that religion are terrorists, only that that particular religion gives rise to the most amount of terrorists these days.

I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 0) 120

He did not do it in name of Christianity, though. You know as well as I do, that 'crusade' has other allegorical meanings, and not points to an actual crusade like happened 600 years ago. And while many innocents were killed, the *target* was not innocent civilians, in contrasts to terrorists. Also, there is no doubt that, if certain parts of the world with a certain religious conviction had the military might and power of the US, the death- toll would be far higher than 1 million.

The point was not that wars can not be fought by others, but what religion is most dangerous in the sense of: most terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion. It's quite simple: how many terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion this last decade. Is it Christianity? Buddhism? etc. Evaluate this objectively, and you get your answer. I don't see why one has to become all emotional if not defensive about it.

Comment Re:I know it's fun to make fun of Homeopathy (Score 1) 309

"The problem, which is obvious to the non-stupid, is that the damage is done to a random sampling of society by stupid people."

Not entirely. Stupidity is also partially hereditary, so in any given sample, kids of stupid parents will be more likely to be stupid themselves, than kids from two intelligent parents.

It's true that other factors, like education, makes has a larger influence on it, but still, one can't actually say it's a totally random sample. Stupid parents, as a whole, are also more likely to be stupid in different domains - such as having a more rational approach in childrearing. Thus, they tend to have more kids than intelligent people. And those kids tend to be more stupid in their turn, and do the same themselves. As said, mostly by example, but ALSO by genes.

So, no, it's not a completely random sample.

Comment Re:For as little as I've heard about Hyperloop (Score 1) 93

Let's not fall into the 'victimhood'-role. We have Wu for that. ;-)

I just looked at your list, and the problem was that it was very subjective. for instance, wanting to go to Mars may seem like insane to you, but looks awesome to me. He might be overly optimistic and ambitious with his timetable, but better that, then having no zeal or goal at all (or just lining your and your shareholders pockets, like most CEO's strive for).

I fail to see the gravity of these 'flaws', nor are they clear flaws to begin with, with the possible exception of the last one. then again, Linux was still immature back then, and you're wrong: windows2000 was one of the best windows OS'es ever made, in the context of that timeperiod. So even there there is room for saying he was doing something sane.

I know you might disagree, but that's how most others see it. and I think, your tone and the subjective nature of your arguments in consideration, you were more seen as a troll than being serious in your comments.

But anyway, if you're complaining about the inconsistency of the reputationbar, I'll help you out by giving troll status to Linus cussing too. So then you both get to downmodded, and there is no problem.

j/k ;-)

Comment Re:Inevitable and unavoidable (Score 1) 309

It can be solved simply by ordering all homeopathic substances must at least have a 10C dilution. And if they do not follow that - certainly when deliberately done - they can be jailed for fraud, and, if people have died because of it, manslaughter.

It would still leave the stupid people thinking it works, but if we also prohibit any actual medical help to any adult that voluntary and consciously takes homeopathic stuff, it will sort itself out after a few generations.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only thing worse than X Windows: (X Windows) - X

Working...